dr. dwight read chair, interdisciplinary program in human complex systems,
Post on 14-Jan-2016
20 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
From Experiential-Based to Relational-Based Forms of Social Organization
A Major Transition in the Evolution of Homo sapiens
Dr. Dwight ReadChair, Interdisciplinary Program in Human Complex Systems,
Department of Anthropology, and Department of Statistics
UCLA
Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
Based on talk presented September 25, 2008 at the Social Brain, Distributed Mind symposium sponsored by the British Academy, London
Introduction
• Part 1: A cognitive constraint in the evolution of primate social systems– Compare starting point (monkey societies) and ending
point (human societies). – Contrast in social organization
• Monkey societies: emergent social structure• Human societies: constructed social structure
– Chimpanzees: Cognitive barrier due to individualization
Introduction (cont’d)
• Part 2: Overcoming the constraint– Four types of behavior: asocial, action/reaction, interaction,
social interaction, relationship to forms of social organization– Theory of Mind and the concept of a relation leads to …– … a reciprocal relation system that provides the basis for
symmetric social interaction, but has a …– … coordination problem: symmetric social interaction
dependent upon mutual sharing of reciprocal relation concepts
– Coordination problem was solved by culturally constructed kinship systems expressed through kinship terminology systems
• Conclusions
Part 1: A cognitive constraint in the evolution of primate social systems
Old World Monkeys/Hunter-gatherer Reference Points
OW monkeys Hunter-gatherers
Time
Old World Monkey Social Organization
Female Dominance Hierarchy
matriline 1
matriline 2
matriline 3
Dominance rank
“during the 10 years … there were no changes in the adult female dominance hierarchy other than those caused by recruitment and mortality” (Bergman et al. 2003:1233)
“Social groups of Old World monkeys such as baboons, macaques, and vervets are composed of … matrilines arranged in a stable, linear dominance hierarchy in which all female members of one matriline outrank or are outranked by all female members of another” (Bergman et al. 2003:1234)
Rule for Hierarchy
…
matriline 1
matriline 2
matriline 3
older female offspring
older biological sister
younger female offspring
focal female
younger biological sister
Dominance rank
new female offspring
new female offspring
Rule: Offspring enters between mother and next lower femaleRule: Offspring enters between mother and next lower female
Hierarchy and Grooming
…
older female offspring
older biological sister
younger female offspring
focal female
younger biological sister
Dominance rank
extensive grooming
Rhesus Monkeys: Grooming in mother/ daughter and sister/sister dyads occurs 16 times more often than in other dyads (from Lindburg 1973: Table 1).
Blue Monkeys: “juvenile females groomed related adult females 10 times more than males did” (Ekernas and Cordes 2007:1014)matriline
Old World Monkeys/Hunter-gatherer Reference Points (2)
“Uniform nature … of cercopithecoid social organization…” (Di Fiori and Rendall 1994:9944)
Genetic Information/Kin selectionSocial Unit: troopSocial Structure Within troop Face-to-face interaction Female/offspring (parenting, grooming) Between troops Boundary maintenance through aggressionEmergent Organization Stable dominance hierarchy
OW monkeys Hunter-gatherers
H-G Social Social Organization
Photo: John Marshall
Concept of a Family
“People in every society have something like our concept of a "family" or "extended family, meaning a set of actual individuals they consider to be relations. They also have a set of shared ideas and symbols (kin terms) that define such relations and enable them to trace out, recognize, and signify their mutual connections reciprocally. ” (Leaf and Read forthcoming, emphasis added)
Hunter-gatherer Residence Group Structures
cousin marriage(most women marry out)
=
==
Netsilik Inuit residence group:father/son links
Lee 1972
!Kung san residence group:Sibling/spouse links
!Kung san Terminology
‘parent’ ‘child’ ‘spouse’‘sibling’ ws = woman speakingms = man speaking
Structure 1
tsu
Structure 2
tun!ga (ws)
!ku!na (ms)
Male terms
//ga
tun (ms)
!ku!na (ws)
Female terms
!ha (‘son’) ≠hai (‘daughter’)
ba (‘father’)
[Male self, Female Self] tsin (‘younger sibling’) [reciprocal terms: !ko (‘older brother’) !kwi (‘older sister’)]
tai (‘mother’)
Family terms Name giver/ Name receiver
!kwa (‘husband’)tsiu (‘wife’)
≠tum otsu
‘-in-law’ terms
otsu ≠tum
Kariera Terminology
Male speaker Female speaker
“Sibling” of _____
“Son” of _____ “Daughter” of _____
“Spouse” of _____
“Father” of _____ “Mother” of _____
Maeli
Mama
Kabali
Nganga
Tami
Kaga
Kandari
Toa
KajaMargara
Nuba Kumbali TurduMari
Mainga Ngaraia Kuling Kundal
Maeli Tami* Tami Maeli*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
“Sibling” of _____
“Son” of _____ “Daughter” of _____
= “Spouse” of _____
“Father” of _____ “Mother” of _____
Maeli
Mama
Kabali
Nganga
Tami
Kaga
Kandari
Yuro
Kaja
Margara Bungali Nuba Turdu
Mari
Toa Kundal Mainga Ngaraia
Kandari Kabali*
Kabali Kandari*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Kariera (hunter-gatherer group)
Terminology Structure to Residence Group Structure
Lee 1972
tsu
Structure 2
tun!ga (ws)
!ku!na (ms)
Male terms
//ga
tun (ms)
!ku!na (ws)
Female terms
!ha (‘son’) ÅÇhai (‘daughter’)
ba (‘father’)
[Male self, Female Self] tsin (‘younger sibling’) [reciprocal terms: !ko (‘older brother’) !kwi (‘older sister’)]
tai (‘mother’)
Family terms
!kwa (‘husband’)
tsiu (‘wife’)
ÅÇtum otsu
‘-in-law’ terms
otsu ÅÇtum
Name giver/Name receiver
Terminology Structure to Social Structure
Maeli, Kandari Kaja,Turdu, Margara, Mari
[ego]
Tami, Kabali, Kumbali (ms), Bungali (fs), Nuba
Kaga, Nganga, Kuling (ms), Ngaraia (ms), Kundal (fs), Mainga (fs)
Mama, Toa, Yuro (fs), Mainga (ms), Kundal (ms), Ngaraia (fs)
“Sibling” of _____
“Son” of _____ “Daughter” of _____
“Spouse” of _____
“Father” of _____ “Mother” of _____
Maeli
Mama
Kabali
Nganga
Tami
Kaga
Kandari
Toa
Kaja
MargaraNuba Kumbali Turdu
Mari
Mainga Ngaraia Kuling Kundal
Maeli Tami* Tami Maeli*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Kariera 4 Section system
Banaka
Palyeri Karimera
=
=
Burung
Marriage
Par
ent
/Chi
ld
Change in Social Organization
“Uniform nature … of cercopithecoid social
organization…” (Di Fiori and Rendall 1994:9944)
Cultural InformationSocial Unit: Residence GroupSocial Structure Within residence group Family (marriage) Rules for membership Between residence groups Integrated by kin relationsConstructed Organization Kinship terminology systemEmergent Organization Societal boundary via mutual kin recognition
Genetic Information/Kin selectionSocial Unit: troopSocial Structure Within troop face-to-face interaction female parenting, grooming Between troops boundary maintenanceEmergent Organization dominance hierarchy
Pongo: Solitary individuals
Gorilla: Single male harem
Pan troglodytes
OW monkeys
???Great apes
Hunter-gatherers
Asocial females with a solitary form of social organization, female dispersal from natal community at puberty (Garneus et al. 1999)
Asocial females with a solitary form of social organization, female dispersal from natal community at puberty (Garneus et al. 1999)
Males form temporary subgroups, have unstable male dominance hierarchies (Garneus et al. 1999, Muller and Mitanai 2005)
Males form temporary subgroups, have unstable male dominance hierarchies (Garneus et al. 1999, Muller and Mitanai 2005)
Extensive grooming by adult males, used to alleviate tensions when a subgroup reforms (Bauer 1979, Goodale 1986)
Extensive grooming by adult males, used to alleviate tensions when a subgroup reforms (Bauer 1979, Goodale 1986)
Highly aggressive and violent community territorial defense by males, including intercommunity killings (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa 1987)
Highly aggressive and violent community territorial defense by males, including intercommunity killings (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa 1987)
Individuality, N, and Social Complexity
Lemur catta
“ring-tailed lemurs express only minor behavioral differences between individuals …no extensive differences among individuals as would be seen among anthropoid primates” (Boyd 2000:39, emphasis added)
N = ~1 N = ~5
“The orangutan, gorilla and chimpanzee especially resemble man in this individualization of behavior” (Yerkes 1927:192)
“And perhaps the most intriguing finding is the selection for high individuality, since apes are rather self-contained individuals with few strong tie networks” (Maryanski and Turner 1992:30, emphasis added)
older female offspring
older biological sister
younger female offspring
focal female
younger biological sister
extensivegrooming
matriline
OW monkeys
N = ~10 (males)
Great Apes(chimpanzee)
troop troop
Focal Individual (FI)
community
1-2 distinct FI-other pairs
5-6 distinct FI-other pairs
Males only: 9 distinct FI-other pairs + 36 FI - dyad pairs = 45 pairs
Group Size = 20:
Cognitive Limit
Number of behaviorally different individuals
Num
ber
of d
iffer
ent
rela
tions
=
cogn
itive
com
plex
ity
NI
Cognitive limit
Socially Coherent Group Size
Size social group
Num
ber
of in
divi
dual
beh
avio
rs
Lemur catta
Colobus
Pan
NI
NS
Cercopithecoids (Old World Monkeys)
Grooming • Occurs primarily between biologicall y related individuals, especially mothers and offspring (Gouzoules and Gouzoules 1987)
Social Structure
• Stable groups around 30 – 50 individuals • aggregates of up to 200 (Kummer 1968; Crook
1966; Dunbar and Dunbar 1975; Sharman 1981) • most males transfer from natal group to
neighboring groups (Pusey and Packer 1987) • stable female dominance hierarchy
Pan Troglodytes (Chimpanzee)
Grooming • Mainly male-male grooming: 59% male-male versus 13% female-female adult grooming (Table 7, Nishida 1979)
• Grooming occurs in reunions of male groups, with grooming directed towards newcomers to the group (Bauer 1979)
Social Structure
• Community – shares single home range, consists of 20 – 100 individuals but made up of small, unstable male groups ( < 6 for Pan)
• community fissioning occurs when there are around 19-20 males
• females transfer from natal group • unstable male dominance hierarchies (Nishida and
Hiraiwa-Hasegawa 1987)
Grooming versus Group Size
Colobusfemale philopatric
Colobusfemale philopatric
Piliocolobusfemale dispersal
Piliocolobusfemale dispersal
chimpanzeemale fission-fusion, female dispersal
chimpanzeemale fission-fusion, female dispersal
Female dispersal or fission-fusion probability of interacting with non-familiar individuals increases with group size
Chimpanzee grooming rate twice Piliocolobus grooming rateChimpanzee grooming rate twice Piliocolobus grooming rate
Figures from Lehmann et al. 2007
Trend, Neocortex Ratio
Lemur catta
Female philopatric, arboreal
Female philopatric, terrestrial
Pan
Neocortex ratio
1.18 x = 2.27, n = 3 species
x = 2.63, n = 6 species
troglodytes: 3.22, paniscus: 3.22
Cognitive Constraint: Implications
Social IntegrationFace-to-face interaction
Social IntegrationRelation system
Cognitive Constraint
ConsequenceSmaller social units,
less integrated groups
TrendExponentially increasing
group complexity
Emergent Social Organization Constructed Social Organization
Anthropoids(Monkeys and Great Apes)
Homo(ancestral, modern)
Phenotype Transmission(imitation, learning)
“less cohesive, less stable grouping pat-terns … resulting in group fission” (Lehmann et al. 2007)
“less cohesive, less stable grouping pat-terns … resulting in group fission” (Lehmann et al. 2007)
Genotype Transmission(inclusive fitness, biological kin selection, sexual selection)
TrendIncreasing individualization
Cultural kin relation systemSocial roles and behavior
Culture Transmission(enculturation)
TrendLarger, integrated groups
Part 2: Overcoming the Constraint
Time
Prior Behavior
Individual iBehavior bi
Post Behavior
Individual jBehavior bj
Prior and Post Behavior
Asocial BehaviorPrior behavior: Probability, Pr(bi ), for behavior bi by individual Ii depends only on the behavior, bi.
Post behavior: Conditional probability for behavior bj by individual Ij given prior behavior bj by individual Ij is independent of the prior behavior bi: Pr(bj | bi ) = Pr(bj ).
Ii
behavior bibehavior bi
Ij
behavior bjbehavior bjThe behaviors of individuals Ii and Ij are statistically independent, which leads to solitary social organization
The behaviors of individuals Ii and Ij are statistically independent, which leads to solitary social organization
Action/Reaction Behavior
Prior behavior: Probability, Pr(bi ), for behavior bi by individual Ii depends only on the behavior, bi.
Post behavior: Pr(bj | bi ) Pr(bj ).
IjIi
behavior bibehavior bi
behavior bjbehavior bj
Spatial structure is pushed towards herding or flocking behavior when each individual spatially acts positively to a behavior by another individual.
Spatial structure is pushed towards herding or flocking behavior when each individual spatially acts positively to a behavior by another individual.
Interaction BehaviorPrior behavior: Let j = Pr(bj ) be a parameter whose value
may be specific to Ij. Probability for behavior bi by individual
Ii is a function of j: Pr(bi ) = f(j ). We will use the notation
Pr(bi | j = Pr(bj )) to denote the probability that Ii does the
behavior bi knowing that Ij does behavior bj with probability
Pr(bj ).
Post behavior: Pr(bj | bi )* Pr(bj ).
Troop form of social organization among the Old World monkeys involves (learned) interaction. Troop structure is widespread and consists of cohesive social integration within a group and behavioral isolation of one group from another.
Troop form of social organization among the Old World monkeys involves (learned) interaction. Troop structure is widespread and consists of cohesive social integration within a group and behavioral isolation of one group from another.
Ii
jj
behavior bi: Game plan
behavior bi: Game plan
Social Interaction BehaviorPrior behavior: Let ij = Pr(bj | bi ) be a parameter whose value
may be specific to Ii and Ij. The probability for behavior bi by
individual Ii is a function of ij: Pr(bi ) = g(ij ). We will use the
notation Pr(bi | ij = Pr(bj | bi )) to denote the probability that Ii
does the behavior bi knowing that Ij does behavior bj with
conditional probability Pr(bj | bi ).
Post behavior: Pr(bj | bi )* Pr(bj ).
“… in the case of interactions with social objects a further dimension is added. Part of ego's expectation … consists in the probable reaction of alter to ego's possible action, a reaction which comes to be anticipated in advance and thus to affect ego's own choices” (Talcott Parsons 1964)
“… in the case of interactions with social objects a further dimension is added. Part of ego's expectation … consists in the probable reaction of alter to ego's possible action, a reaction which comes to be anticipated in advance and thus to affect ego's own choices” (Talcott Parsons 1964)
Ii
Ij
behavior bj
behavior bibehavior bi
Behavior Evolution and Social Organization
Theory of MindRelation concept
Cognitive Constraint
asocial
action/reaction
Male chimpanzees form “short-term coalitions in which two individuals join forces to direct aggression toward third parties” but …
Male chimpanzees form “short-term coalitions in which two individuals join forces to direct aggression toward third parties” but …
… learned social interaction is costly: “Given the importance of coalitions, male chimpanzees work hard to obtain this valuable social service” (Muller and Mitani 2005)
… learned social interaction is costly: “Given the importance of coalitions, male chimpanzees work hard to obtain this valuable social service” (Muller and Mitani 2005)
IndividualizationWorking memory
Mother-Child Relation Concept, long-tailed Macaques
Mo/Ch 12
Mo/~Ch 0
Trial: Choice between novel Mo/Ch pair and Mo/~Ch pair
Ch 20
~Ch 2
Stimulus: Novel MotherTrial: Choice between Ch and ~Ch
Training Exemplars: Mo/Da pair
“Mother-offspring pairs were differentiated from any other pair… cues other than the relation between individuals do not plausibly account for the result” (Dasser 1988)
Theory of Mind projection
Relation Product: New Relation
A
a
b
Mrelation
b
a
B
c
Mrelation
b
a
C
MMrelation
c
a
Mrelation
c
a
New relations can be constructed from existing relations.New relations can be constructed from existing relations.
Reciprocal Relation: Self as Target
B
Theory of Mind projection
A
b
a
c
Mrelation
c
b
Drelation
b
a
Drelation
c
b
Reciprocal relation leads to self as target of other.Reciprocal relation leads to self as target of other.
Reciprocal Relations, R and S, and Associated Behavior
Theory of Mind projection
BA
b
a
c
Rrelation
c
b
Srelation
b
a
Srelation
c
b
Behavior B
c
b
Behavior B
Behavior B
C
Social interaction behavior arises through individual b directing behavior B towards c in the belief that c will direct behavior B towards b.
Social interaction behavior arises through individual b directing behavior B towards c in the belief that c will direct behavior B towards b.
Shared Relations: Reciprocal Behaviors
Rrelation
d
c
Behavior B
Srelation
c
b
c
b
Behavior B
Behavior B
Rrelation
c
b
c
b
Behavior B
Behavior B
A
b
a
c
Srelation
b
a
d
B C
Theory of Mind projections
Symmetrical social interaction behavior arises when individuals b and c conceptually share the same reciprocal relations.
Symmetrical social interaction behavior arises when individuals b and c conceptually share the same reciprocal relations.
Behavior B
Coordination and Functionality
• The reciprocal relations R and S become a marker for individuals who will reciprocate behavior B when behavior B is associated with the relation R and its reciprocal relation S.
• Consequently, the likelihood of the potential functional benefit accruing from behavior B actually being realized through reciprocal behavior depends on group members mutually recognizing the relations and their associated behaviors.
• The latter is a precursor to institutionalized social action/role systems (Nadel 1957) as these “are clothed in cultural meaning systems so that institutions cannot be properly represented
without … reference to shared meanings” (Fararo 1997)
Coordination and Cultural Kinship Systems
The coordination problem was solved in hominid evolution with the formation of systems of cultural kin relations expressed through kinship terminologies and transmitted via enculturation. The system of cultural kin relations we find in human societies is:
1) a system of reciprocal relations2) a computational system through which kin relations may be
calculated in a simple manner, and3) a generative computational system (Read 1984,1997, 2005),
thereby enabling faithful transmission through enculturation
In brief, cultural kinship is based on a system of concepts with a generative structure and does not emerge from behavior, but instead provides a model for behavior.
Summary• The trend towards increased individualization led to
exponentially increasing social complexity that became a cognitive barrier with the great apes.
• The cognitive barrier was only overcome with a shift from behavior based on individual phenotype to behavior associated with a conceptual system of self:other relations.
• The evolutionary importance of the shift to behavior associated with self:other relations is two fold:
1) new relations can be formed from existing relations through the composition of relations and
2) reciprocal self:other relations led to symmetric social interaction.
• The functionality stemming from behaviors associated with symmetric social interaction will only be realized fully in a community of individuals sharing the same conceptual system of reciprocal relations
Thus the development of human social organization is driven:1. by the development of conceptual systems of kinship relations that
integrate and bound the social system (Read various);2. internally by the cohesiveness of conceptual systems and through
their culturally instantiated forms that provide the social context for behavior (Read 2002, van der Leeuw et al. In Press);
3. and externally by the functionality provided by a conceptual system for social organization in competition with the functionality of other conceptual systems of social organization through evolution of forms of organization (Read 1985, Lane et al. in Press).
Conclusion
Questions?Questions?
Conclusions (cont’d)
• Thus evolution of human social organization is driven:– internally by the cohesiveness of a conceptual
system and through its culturally instantiated form which provides the social context for behavior (van
der Leeuw, D. Lane, D. Read, D. White In Press) and– externally by the functionality provided by a
system of social organization in competition with the functionality of other systems of social organization (Read 1985).
Questions?
Part 5: Evolution of Social Organization Based on Social Interaction
Evolution of Social Organization
Theory of Mind
Working Memory
Individuation
Cognitive Constraint
Hunter-Gatherer Societies
• Typically self-identify as “the real people” (e.g. the !Kung san of the Kalahari Desert in Botswana refer to themselves as the jun/wasi -- “we, the real people”)
• Criterion for a “real person” -- someone with whom one has a kin relation; that is one has a kin term for that person
• Thus the “real persons” are all those individuals who can reciprocally recognize one another as kin
• The modal population size of 500 persons is most likely the limit on the number of persons who can mutually recognize one another as kin
Social Interaction and Culturally Identified Kin
• Persons who co-recognize each other as kin share a reciprocal kinship system and have been enculturated into the same cultural system that provides the basis for social interaction
• Non-kin are “strangers” (!Kung san: strangers are chu dole = “harmful, dangerous”) and in some H/G groups were killed before they could, as they believed to be the case, cause harm; e.g., the Waorani of S. America (Davis and Yost 2001).
• Briefly, social interaction is not possible with non-kin
Hunter-Gatherer Band Society Organization
Tribal Society (groups)
Demographic Size: Several H-G band societies
Tribal Society (lineages)
Tribal Society (Moieties)
Tribal Society (ritual)
State Structure(top down structure)
Cercopithecoids
y = -0.0309x + 11.858
R2 = 0.0659
y = 0.0083x + 4.2625
R2 = 0.0107
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Group Size
% Grooming Time
Low percent High Percent Outlier 1
Outlier 2 Linear (Low percent) Linear (High Percent)
Linear (Low percent)
OW Monkey Grooming
Data from Lehmann et al. 2007:Table 1
Feeding location
Grooming < 6%
Grooming > 7%
Terrestrial 1 9
Arboreal 15 1
Kinship as a Computational System
By a computational system (kinship terminology) is meant that two individuals A and B can compute the kin relation they have to each other when there is a third individual, C, for whom each of A and B knows his or her kin relation to C via the kin terms each of A and B use to refer to C:
[Maori kin] terms permit comparative strangers to fix kinship rapidly…. With mutual relationship terms all that is required is the discovery of one common relative. Thus, if A is related to B as child to mother, veitanani, whereas C is related to B as veitacini, sibling of the same sex, then it follows that A is related to C as child to mother, although they never before met or knew it. Kin terms are predictable. If two people are each related to a third, then they are related to each other . (Sahlins 1962)
A kinship terminology is a system of concepts with a generative structure and does not emerge from behavior, but instead provides a model for behavior.
Likely Relation Concepts
Perceives of having a kind of relation to based on differential behavior of expressed towards
3 likely sets of relations:(1) mother, daughter, son (or child), father ?(2) brother, sister (or sibling)(3) other
Genetic mother Genetic sibling
No (close) genetic relation
Tribal Society (political office)
Biological Evolution
Assumptions about units, transmission and selection are necessary for Universal Darwinism to apply to biological processes. It is usually assumed that
• units come in one of two forms (male, female)• characteristics of a new unit are formed from the
random selection of an allele from pairs of alleles from one male and one female
• there is competition among units for degree of involvement in unit formation
These assumptions have consequences such as the emergence of higher level units (species) that are not predictable directly from the tenets of Universal Darwinism
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
top related